VCDL Announces "Operation Campus Safety"

This is a discussion on VCDL Announces "Operation Campus Safety" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Background:
For sometime now, carry has been legal on most Virginia public college campuses -- unless you were an employee or student of that college. ...

VCDL Announces "Operation Campus Safety"

Background:

For sometime now, carry has been legal on most Virginia public college campuses -- unless you were an employee or student of that college. Employees and students of the college were prohibited the right to self-defense on their own campus by "rules" to which they agreed, by reference, when they applied and were accepted or hired.

A couple of colleges slipped prohibitions into the Virginia Administrative Code (not the statutory law which is legislated) -- e.g., see item # 4 of Virginia Commonwealth University's "The right to academic freedom and to equal educational and occupational access" at LIS > Administrative Code > 8VAC35-60-20

These non-legislated restrictions of all citizens have been upheld in the courts.

Now a number of other colleges are in the process of adopting the same anti-freedom tactics.

The Board of Directors of VCDL has decided that enough is enough when it comes to the safety of the students, faculty, staff, and guests at Virginia public universities and colleges. Higher-education "no gun" policies do not make the innocent any safer. Instead such policies enable people like Cho to wantonly massacre, rape, and rob.

Those policies disarm students, faculty and staff not only on campus, but going to and from campus. ODU, for example, is not situated in the best part of town and unarmed students pay the price.

What's even more egregious is that concealed handgun permit holders, who are at least 21 years old, have clean records, have had training, are not illegal drug users or habitual drunkards, and carry virtually everywhere else they go, are purposely left helpless. There simply is no excuse for that. Just one armed permit holder in one of those classrooms under attack at Virginia Tech on that fateful day in 2007 could have stopped Cho.

[A JMU STUDENT, WHO IS ALSO A CHP HOLDER, SAVED HIS LIFE LAST WEEK JUST OFF THE JMU CAMPUS - SEE ITEM #2, BELOW]

Just who exactly do those who live in the Ivory Towers think they are to dictate what your life or mine is worth? Where do they get the authority to do so? Gun laws are strictly controlled by the General Assembly and there is NO enabling legislation giving higher-ed the authority to have gun-control on campus. Too many of those in the Ivory Towers are so lost in the alternate world of academia, they become isolated from reality.

The thought of being expelled from Virginia Tech, something that I'm sure the University considers right up there with the death penalty, didn't even slow Cho down from his dark mission. And after the massacre, the University completely missed the real-world lesson that was so painfully taught them. Instead they decided to double-down on a failed and dangerous policy that only works on a blackboard.

The universities know that the Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli has stated that they are not responsible for ensuring the safety of students (UMW rape suit dismissal sought), yet those same universities demand that students nonetheless delegate their safety to the university and its police officers (who by the way have a Supreme Court ruling that says that THEY are not responsible for the safety of any one individual, only the public generally)! Nothing against campus police, but the same unfortunate reality applies to them as it does all other police officers - when seconds count between life and death, the police are only minutes away.

Speaking of that, when Virginia Tech was under attack by Cho, guess where a contingency of police went immediately? You guessed it - to protect those in the Ivory Towers! Those in the Ivory Towers should not get any more protection than anyone else - after all, it is their dangerous policies of making people FEEL safe that only end up aiding someone like Cho in his mission of murder.

A SOLUTION - VCDL WILL BE PROtestING AT A SCHOOL NEAR YOU!

If higher-education won't do the right thing on their own, then VCDL and gun owners statewide need to "nudge" them onto the right path.

How do we do that?

Simple. We hit them where it hurts - right in the wallet. With the economy in the dumps, higher-ed is probably not getting the level of donations they are used to and we plan on squeezing them even more.

To that effect, VCDL is preparing a series of campus protests over the next few months. We are having signs, brochures, and stickers made as I write this. We will be on campus educating students and we will be reaching out to alumni to stop donations to the school until they change their policies, however long that takes.

Those protests will be starting in a few weeks.

ALUMNI AND PROSPECTIVE PARENTS - WE NEED SOME QUOTES FROM YOU!

If you are an alumni of the following schools, or are considering sending your son or daughter to one of them, and don't mind your name being published in the pamphlets, email me (president@vcdl.org) a one or two sentence quote that we can use in the brochures that we will be handing out on campus:

College of William & Mary
Virginia Commonwealth University
George Mason University
Virginia Tech
James Madison University
Radford University

Include in the quote, which university or college you attended. Something like, "As an alumni of XYZ University, I cannot and will not support a school that mindlessly disarms students, faculty, staff, and guests with concealed handgun permits." Please use your own wording.

I will be announcing each protest a week or so before it is held here on VA-ALERT so that we can get a good turnout at each one. We will need people holding signs, handing out brochures, and talking to those with questions. Someone from VCDL leadership will be interfacing with the press.

In the meantime, spread the word far and near. When a university or college asks for money, tell them: NO GUNS? NO FUNDS!

************************************
2. JMU student/CHP holder attacked by two robbers, shoots one and the other surrenders
************************************

A JMU student shot one of two men attempting to rob him, ending the robbery and putting one criminal in the hospital and the other in jail. It's a small world: Jaime Radtke, who is a neighbor running for the U.S. Senate, told me she knows the student and his family. Apparently the JMU student used a Ruger LCP in .380 ACP to shoot the gun-brandishing criminal. The shot hit the criminal in the leg and the guy folded like a deck of cards. The student was actually surprised that a leg shot from a .380 had so totally incapacitated the bad guy. What he found out later was that the bullet had hit the bad guy in the thigh, ricocheted off the thigh bone and went through both of his testicles! As all of the now wincing male readers of this alert will testify: it was lights out, game over at that point.

The police told the JMU student that both of his assailants were bad news and that it was good that he was armed.

Jaime told me that apparently both bad guys had been on the JMU campus earlier that day (so much for that gun-free zone thing). If the student had been on campus when this dangerous situation had arose, he either might have been murdered if unarmed, or expelled for having the audacity to defend himself.

Police have arrested a male involved with a shooting in Harrisonburg over the weekend.

The Harrisonburg Police Department arrested O'Rondae Jones, 19, of Manassas, Va. Jones has been charged with two counts of brandishing a firearm.

Police report that around 12:30 a.m. Saturday, Jones brandished a gun toward a male victim in the 1400 block of Devon Lane. He was accompanied by George Escobar, 19, of Falls Church,

The victim shot Jones in the upper leg. Jones was taken to Rockingham Memorial Hospital and later transferred to the University of Virginia Medical Center. He has since been released.

Police say the investigation reveals the shooting was made in self-defense and the victim will not face charges.

Jones is currently being held at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.

Escobar was charged with two counts of giving false identification to law enforcement, unlawful use or injury to telephone lines and obstructing justice. He also had outstanding warrants from Falls Church.

-----

Please join us in this action, if you live in Virginia, are an alumni of one of Virginia's Public Colleges, or are considering sending your son or daughter to one.

**Demonstrations planned to fight ban of concealed carry in college buildings

By Tonia Moxley | The Roanoke Times

The pro gun Virginia Citizens Defense League is planning a series of demonstrations next month at state universities including Virginia Tech, Radford University and James Madison University to protest efforts to ban concealed carry in campus buildings, the group's president, Philip Van Cleave, said this afternoon.

The effort stems from an opinion issued recently by state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli that said to ban legal concealed carry in campus buildings a university's governing body must pass a state regulation. A simple policy, such as that in effect on the Tech campus, is insufficient, Cuccinelli opined.

According to a recent Virginia Supreme Court ruling, however, public universities may ban open carry of firearms in buildings and at events such as football games through a simple policy. Violations of such policies can lead to criminal trespassing charges, and may lead to administrative disciplinary action against students and employees.

E. The following persons shall be deemed disqualified from obtaining a permit:
...

7. An individual who has been convicted of two or more misdemeanors within the five-year period immediately preceding the application, if one of the misdemeanors was a Class 1 misdemeanor, but the judge shall have the discretion to deny a permit for two or more misdemeanors that are not Class 1. Traffic infractions and misdemeanors set forth in Title 46.2 shall not be considered for purposes of this disqualification.

8. An individual who is addicted to, or is an unlawful user or distributor of, marijuana, synthetic cannabinoids, or any controlled substance.

9. An individual who has been convicted of a violation of § 18.2-266 or a substantially similar local ordinance, or of public drunkenness, or of a substantially similar offense under the laws of any other state, the District of Columbia, the United States, or its territories within the three-year period immediately preceding the application, or who is a habitual drunkard as determined pursuant to § 4.1-333.

...

13. An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth may submit to the court a sworn written statement indicating that, in the opinion of such sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth, based upon a disqualifying conviction or upon the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.
...
**
-----

Sure, there may be someone who has never been caught and who is totally unknown to the authorities.

But surely you would not deny the civil rights of everyone because it could not be proven with absolute certainty that no one could have slip through the cracks.

I believe that someone is innocence until proven guilty. IMHO, the idea that ALL should be denied their right because one might be guilty is untenable.

All the arguments for not carrying on campus are exactly the same as those the hoplophobic use for restricting carry in the crazy patchwork quilt of no guns in/on/at "X" -- e.g., airport parking lots, airport terminals, any public building, any venue that charges admission, bars, buses, churches, colleges, concerts, funeral, gun shops, gun shows, libraries, parades, military bases, parks, protest, public gathering, public meetings (councils, boards, etc), road side rest areas, schools, sporting events, stadiums, trains, to name a few.

However, there is no evidence that there is any higher rate of gun related problems in State "a", which allows legal carry in one of these places/events than there is in State "b", which denies legal carry in one of these places/events.

In addition, those States which have the most of this "but not here" restriction nonsense are the ones where the antis have lost the battle to ban firearms out right or extremely restrict carry and now they are fighting a rear guard action to make it as logistically hard as they can for us to avoid run afoul of the law.

FWIIW, I, personally, support Constitutional Carry.

All the arguments for restrictions on carry (e.g., “may issue”, OKs from the chief LEO, prior training, proficiency testing, checking more frequently to see if a person is still fit to carry a weapon) are exactly the same as those that the hoplophobic use for restricting carry in the crazy patchwork quilt of hurdles to be cleared before exercising and to continue the exercise of our RKBA.

However, there is no evidence that there is any higher rate of gun related problems in those States with little or no such nonsense, as there is in those States with draconian restrictions on the 2A.

During a public panel Q & A session at Virginia Tech, I saw a leaders of the Antis, here in Virginia, sandbagged into actually defining what “reasonable restrictions” and adequate “training & proficiency” he would agree to as the minimum for carry. I know what Washington DC thinks is reasonable (no carry), what Chicago thinks is reasonable (only the well connected), and what his-dishonor-from NYC talks about as reasonable. They are all extremely high hurdles or outright blocks to serve as prior-restraints on a right they do not want you (the average citizen) to have.

These antis are convinced that it is better to deny “the many” the right to protection because it could stop some small number from [fill-in-the-blank] in the future – all the while being in denial of the criminals’ total disregard for those very laws that create vast “unarmed victim zones.” “Unarmed victim zones” such as college campuses on which those very criminals prey. The anti-freedom advocates preach “It could be" while ignoring what actually is happening -- and that is not logical.

Wake up and take a breath the free air of those States w/o this hoplophobic nonsense. Then look around at the lack of carnage, such as we see reported from the major anti-gun States & cities.

The bottom line is that all these prior-restraints do not work. The blood baths that the antis hope that their manta might stop sometime in the future are happening, right now, in the “unarmed victim zones” as they continue to preach their trust-us-we’ll-take-care-of-you.

OTOH, in places where the prior-restraints are being reduced crime is being reduced. Just look at the recent FBI stats.

Want to live in a safer place either move to a State w/o this hoplophobic nonsense, or work to get it reduced in your State, but don’t buy into “let’s increase increasing the prior-restraints on the RKBA because it will make us safe.

Last edited by DaveH; October 11th, 2011 at 02:08 PM.
Reason: a typo & to removed some funny spacing that showed up

But surely you would not deny the civil rights of everyone because it could not be proven with absolute certainty that no one could have slip through the cracks.

Who's talking about denying anybody anything?

I am curious if my suspicions are correct. That professed, bandada wearing gangbangers who fail to meet the 922 (g) and Va. state prohibited persons categories could lawfully open carry in Virginia if they wanted to. Period.

If you mean that any honest citizen (in the eyes of the law) who can legally own a firearm can OC in much of Virginia, yes, you are right.

However, there are restrictions -- such as § 18.2-287.4 and other situs restrictions.

“Absent some disqualifying status (being a felon, juvenile, or drug possessor) or situs (being in a place where weapons are forbidden), it is not a crime to possess a weapon.” Jackson v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 211, 231, 583 S.E.2d 780, 790 (2003) (en banc)

However, if you were not objecting to "Operation Campus Safety", what was your point of claiming that a "statement by VCDL is made without any certainty that this may/may not be true"?

Are opposing OC? If so, this is neither the place nor the time for that discussion, IMHO.

If you are opposing "Operation Campus Safety", feel free. However, please be clear as to the point you are making.

However, if you were not objecting to "Operation Campus Safety", what was your point of claiming that a "statement by VCDL is made without any certainty that this may/may not be true"?

It's very simple. The fact that somebody has a CCW does not mean that they aren't drug users or alcoholics. Any more than the fact that somebody's a cop means they aren't drug users or alcoholics. Or that because somebody has a security clearance that they would never sell secrets (e.g. Hansen, Ames).

There is no relationship between the VCDL's statement and reality. That's basic Logic 101. I go through life with my eye on the ball. Being able to separate out fact from non-fact is a good investigative tool. At least it always worked well for me.

It's very simple. The fact that somebody has a CCW does not mean that they aren't drug users or alcoholics. Any more than the fact that somebody's a cop means they aren't drug users or alcoholics. Or that because somebody has a security clearance that they would never sell secrets (e.g. Hansen, Ames).

There is no relationship between the VCDL's statement and reality. That's basic Logic 101. I go through life with my eye on the ball. Being able to separate out fact from non-fact is a good investigative tool. At least it always worked well for me.

That's a wide brush you're wielding....

Do the math on the number of drug users or alcoholics who have CHPs (as they are called in VA) vs the overall population. Which group (in the eyes of the state) are more trustworthy of carrying a firearm? I do not wish to discuss OCing, as it is NOT the point of the story.

So instead of comparing the apples to the oranges, or in your case, CHP holders with drug users/alcoholics/spies...keep the eye on the CHP holder ball, and their ability to carry across the imaginary threshold the Ivory Tower collegiate officials have deemed "too sensitive", but where criminals thrive.

There is no relationship between the VCDL's statement and reality. That's basic Logic 101.

SNIP

Chad,

1) In the eyes of the law one is innocence until proven guilty. Hence, in the eyes of the law, one is neither an illegal drug users nor habitual drunkards until convicted as such. IMHO, such legal dictum trumps word games -- as we are talking about Gun Legislation on a Concealed Carry Forum that focuses on the Second Amendment, Federal State and local legislation related to our gun rights.

That fallacy is committed when you jump to the conclusion (or make the suggestion) that no cogent argument exist for a conclusion just because one argument for a conclusion is mistaken, questionable, weak, not as clearly stated as it might be, etc. Taking a simple statement that is true in the vast preponderances of cases and asserting that it must be true in all cases in order to have a valid relationship to reality is akin to the Argumentum ad Logicam Fallacy, IMHO.

It's also called “moving the goal-post”, in the vernacular.

3) In any case, a rare exception does not establish that there is (as you claim) “no relationship” between a statement and reality. In this case, there is an exceptionally strong negative correlation between having a CHP and being an illegal drug user or a habitual drunkard. Therefore, there is an exceptionally strong and valid relationship between the statement and reality.

Would you paint nearly a quarter million Virginia CHP holders as so untrustworthy to abridge their right to defend themselves based on your alleged characteristics of an insignificant percent of them?

IMHO, that exceptionally strong relationship is sufficient to trust CHP holders with discreetly carried tools of self-defense on our public college campuses.

If you don't approve of campus carry, so be it.

However, nitpicking the words of those fighting to maintain and expand the RKBA is not appreciated.